Wayne Rooney arrested on suspicion of drink driving

[midlife]

He has, but I'm not aware of him being involved in any court scrapes, although he may have been.

Being over the side/using a prostitute may be regarded by many as acceptable laddish behaviour.

Drink driving has fewer apologists, and as we see on here, never more so than when the offender is wealthy.

Rightly or wrongly, a lot in terms of public reaction may depend on the breath reading.

A little bit over the limit would get a less critical response than if he was two or three times over.

Three times over the limit in think I read in the Daily Fail.....

 

[MacB]

Where are you reading this?

He's confusing discussions of whether a punishment will have the desired impact with assumptions of wealth envy.

As usual it's a systemic issue rather than an individual, Rooney the individual is actually unimportant.

 

[KnackeredBike]

It makes a huge difference having corrupt police.

The police already do this. Not just the fixed penalty system, which has basis in law, but also by offering "driving courses" in lieu of points, of which the police get a cut. (Bribery Act aside...)

Now I'm pished off if someone knocks me off my bike and avoids nasty points as a reminder of their idiocy by chucking the police a bit of money and spending four hours being told to be more careful. If they police actually investigate it anyway. Because them getting points has a good reason.

As I have said there is zero purpose in prosecuting Wayne Rooney, and so pragmatically the state should "agree a settlement" instead. It doesn't need to be financial, it could be doing some football training with kids or something that will actually do some good rather than spend good money to give the tabloids some muck to rake over.

 

[KnackeredBike]

You are confusing stuff. That is not corrupt.

Would it be covered by the Bribery Act if it wasn't that the police won't prosecute the police?

And as the answer to that is "yes", then what is your definition of corrupt, if not the police taking bribes?

 

[KnackeredBike]

No, it is an officially sanctioned, alternative way of dealing with some offences.

Who has officially sanctioned paying the police in return for handing out less than the statutory penalties?

ACPO. Association of Chief Police Officers.

 

[KnackeredBike]

I think you are allowing your personal deamons to cloud your judgement here.

That's the one, not "Adrian is wrong, there is no official sanction" but "It must be the voices in your head".

 

[Smokin Joe]

As I have said there is zero purpose in prosecuting Wayne Rooney, and so pragmatically the state should "agree a settlement" instead. It doesn't need to be financial, it could be doing some football training with kids or something that will actually do some good rather than spend good money to give the tabloids some muck to rake over.

Of course there is. He gets banned from driving for at least a year, possibly more. As for the fine, only a few drink drivers suffer any financial hardship other than in the immediate short term.

For those in the public eye the lurid headlines and stigma are a hard punishment on their own, let alone for someone who has to appear before up to 70,000 people every week and who will no doubt be "Reminding" him of it for the best part of ninety minutes. Replace a footballer with some "Cool" rock star and I bet there would be nowhere near the huffing and puffing and moral outrage from all concerned.

 

[TVC]

The police already do this. Not just the fixed penalty system, which has basis in law, but also by offering "driving courses" in lieu of points, of which the police get a cut. (Bribery Act aside...)

Now I'm pished off if someone knocks me off my bike and avoids nasty points as a reminder of their idiocy by chucking the police a bit of money and spending four hours being told to be more careful. If they police actually investigate it anyway. Because them getting points has a good reason.

As I have said there is zero purpose in prosecuting Wayne Rooney, and so pragmatically the state should "agree a settlement" instead. It doesn't need to be financial, it could be doing some football training with kids or something that will actually do some good rather than spend good money to give the tabloids some muck to rake over.

You are still at it, advocating a different set of laws for the rich and famous. The whole point is that everybody is treated equally under the law. If he broke the law he gets treated just like everybody else.

 

[JoshM]

You are still at it, advocating a different set of laws for the rich and famous. The whole point is that everybody is treated equally under the law. If he broke the law he gets treated just like everybody else.

But the point is that the consequences have a very different impact on different people. Take someone earning min wage, a £100 fine would be a big issue, at least until payday (and beyond, since they'd likely have to borrow money to pay the fine), now consider so,eone earning £250,000 a week, like Rooney, who won't even notice the £100 missing. I suppose it comes down to whether you believe the punishment should be equal or impact of the punishment.

I know someone who will cheerfully tell you the story of ordering the wrong bottle of wine. I don't know what the cost of bottle he thought he was ordering was, but the (more expensive) bottle he did order was £700. He paid almost my entire months wages for one meal, only feeling relieved the mistake wasn't more costly. If they'd sold me the same bottle of wine I'd have cried, then possibly been arrested for being unable to pay!

 

[Crackle]

Is there an online petition to bring back the stocks I can sign?

 

[TVC]

But the point is that the consequences have a very different impact on different people. Take someone earning min wage, a £100 fine would be a big issue, at least until payday (and beyond, since they'd likely have to borrow money to pay the fine), now consider so,eone earning £250,000 a week, like Rooney, who won't even notice the £100 missing. I suppose it comes down to whether you believe the punishment should be equal or impact of the punishment.

I know someone who will cheerfully tell you the story of ordering the wrong bottle of wine. I don't know what the cost of bottle he thought he was ordering was, but the (more expensive) bottle he did order was £700. He paid almost my entire months wages for one meal, only feeling relieved the mistake wasn't more costly. If they'd sold me the same bottle of wine I'd have cried, then possibly been arrested for being unable to pay!

Sentencing is a different issue to proceedure, I see the merits of fines proportionate to income as that levels the field, but buying your way out of the process as proposed is contrary to the principle of law in this country.

 

[MacB]

You are still at it, advocating a different set of laws for the rich and famous. The whole point is that everybody is treated equally under the law. If he broke the law he gets treated just like everybody else.

But we can separate the guilt/innocence aspect from the punishment/rehabilitation aspect.

 

[TVC]

But we can separate the guilt/innocence aspect from the punishment/rehabilitation aspect.

Yes, but Knackered's proposal was "To be honest he should have just offered plod a load of money and saved everyone a lot of time."

 

[swansonj]

You are confusing stuff. That is not corrupt.

I will agree that there is a definition of "corrupt" where it is not corrupt because it has official sanction. But there is another definition - focussed on the outcome - in which this very much smacks to me of what we would normally call corruption. Corporate corruption or something if you like.

 

[Levo-Lon]

I got a monkey fine and 20 mth ban for 2 1/2 times the limit.
If id used a solicitor id have got 12 mth and maybe 200 fine.
23 years ago now..
Nothing much has changed..on the fines or ban lengths..
I haven't drove with alcohol in my system since..lesson learned.
I wont wear a suit to court again and i wont let the clark know i have a credit card.
Can you pay now the judge says!! No i feckin cant